GMATPrep - Frederick Winslow Taylor

[tim60288]

Frederick Winslow Taylor, a machinist and engineer who worked in the early twentieth century, believed that the productivity of a job could be improved [if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion, then redesign] the job so that each motion could be done as efficiently as possible.

(A) if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion, then redesign
(B) if one separated the components of a task into individual motions, found the best way to perform the motions, and then redesigning
(C) if the components of a task were separated into individual motions, finding the best way of performing the motions, and then redesigned
(D) by separating the components of a task into individual motions, finding the best way to perform each motion, and then redesigning
(E) by separating the components of a task into individual motions, finding the best way of performing each motion, then redesign

Hi Instructors,
I delete
A
1. "improve + by" is more direct.
2. Pronoun "one"
3. Parallelism - Without "and" connect "then redesign"

B
1. "improve + by" is more direct.
2. Pronoun "one"

C
1. "improve + by" is more direct.
2. "if the components of a task were separated" is Wordy when compare with "by separating"

E
1. Parallelism - Without "and" connect "then redesign"
2. of performing...

Any other errors in A/B/C/E that we can remove or my ideas are incorrect.

Thank you : )

[thanghnvn]

[quote="tim60288"]Frederick Winslow Taylor, a machinist and engineer who worked in the early twentieth century, believed that the productivity of a job could be improved [if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion, then redesign] the job so that each motion could be done as efficiently as possible.

(A) if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion, then redesign
(B) if one separated the components of a task into individual motions, found the best way to perform the motions, and then redesigning
(C) if the components of a task were separated into individual motions, finding the best way of performing the motions, and then redesigned
(D) by separating the components of a task into individual motions, finding the best way to perform each motion, and then redesigning
(E) by separating the components of a task into individual motions, finding the best way of performing each motion, then redesign

A
"to be to do" in the if-clause is used to show an action happening after the action in main clause. it is hard to justify the use of "to be to do" in if clause and we should let this job latter.
the main problem in A is that we have to realized that "separate", "find" and "redesige" are need to be parallel logically. this is the hardest job, which means "understanding the meaning before checking grammar".

then, we check whether the three verbs are parallem grammaticaly or in form. they are not. A is wrong


B,C, E are similar to A .

D is correct.

[RonPurewal]

Tim60288, your observations seem OK, except in that you didn't find all the examples of non-parallelism. There are three actions that should be in parallel:
"- Separate the components
"- Find the best way to do each
"- Redesign the job

So, for instance, B is also non-parallel, but you didn't point this out.

Any other errors in A/B/C/E that we can remove or my ideas are incorrect.

This question is unfairly general. The forum is for specific questions, not for a general run-down of everything that's possibly wrong with every answer choice.
Please ask specific questions about specific answer choices. Thanks.

[tim60288]

Sure! Thanks Ron : )

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[Kun-JuiC625]

hello~ ron
what's wrong is the pronoun "one" ?

[RonPurewal]

hello~ ron
what's wrong is the pronoun "one" ?

Nothing is actually wrong with "one".
Stylistically, it's weird/awkward; if there's an easy work-around that eliminates it without creating an overly clumsy sentence, then that work-around is better. Style issues, though, are NOT tested on this exam.

The two choices with "one" both contain clear non-parallelism, so "one" is a non-issue. It's there to distract you. (Parallelism is the #1 topic in all of GMAT SC. If it's an issue, always examine it FIRST.)

[AbhilashM94]

Ron,

(A) if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion, then redesign
(D) by separating the components of a task into individual motions, finding the best way to perform each motion, and then redesigning - > PARALLEL

I know there is something wrong with AND FOUND in A. Breaks parallelism in some way.

Can you help?

[RonPurewal]

That's non-parallel because "to found" isn't right. It's "to find".

There's no need to repeat "to", but the actions still need to appear in the same forms, even if "to" is left out.

("To found" is a verb, but it's not the right verb here. It means "to establish or start", e.g., I founded a company.)

[eggpain24]

HI，ron
I recognize another error in choice A，please clarify，thanks！

if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion

we get a subjunctive mood here to describe an unlikely or untrue situation, or situation not yet happen

since this verb mood is used, then in the main clause: the productivity of a job could be improved

we need "would" here to replace "could", because "would" in the only accepted use here in terms of subjunctive mood

[thanghnvn]

I can come to d.

but d is wrong

the oa is wrong

separating should be replaced with separation.

I am confused. Pls, explain

[RonPurewal]

the oa is wrong

No.
It's not.

[RonPurewal]

HI，ron
I recognize another error in choice A，please clarify，thanks！

if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion

we get a subjunctive mood here to describe an unlikely or untrue situation, or situation not yet happen

since this verb mood is used, then in the main clause: the productivity of a job could be improved

we need "would" here to replace "could", because "would" in the only accepted use here in terms of subjunctive mood

Nope. Either can be used.

If you were to invent X, you would get rich —> If you actually come up with this invention (= something I see as unlikely), you will DEFINITELY get rich.

If you were to invent X, you could get rich —> If you actually come up with this invention (= something I see as unlikely), you MIGHT get rich, but that outcome still isn't certain (e.g., maybe you won't be prudent enough about protecting your intellectual property and/or good enough at negotiating a price for it).

[RonPurewal]

On the other hand, the two parts you've bolded are non-parallel. That's the problem.

You'd want "...were to separate ... and (to) find..."

[eggpain24]

HI，ron
I recognize another error in choice A，please clarify，thanks！

if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion

we get a subjunctive mood here to describe an unlikely or untrue situation, or situation not yet happen

since this verb mood is used, then in the main clause: the productivity of a job could be improved

we need "would" here to replace "could", because "would" in the only accepted use here in terms of subjunctive mood

Nope. Either can be used.

If you were to invent X, you would get rich —> If you actually come up with this invention (= something I see as unlikely), you will DEFINITELY get rich.

If you were to invent X, you could get rich —> If you actually come up with this invention (= something I see as unlikely), you MIGHT get rich, but that outcome still isn't certain (e.g., maybe you won't be prudent enough about protecting your intellectual property and/or good enough at negotiating a price for it).

wow！that's a point I need to pick up

thanks, Ron!